Best Administrative Attorney Daly City Near Me

4worldlovers: A Bay Area Law Firm with proven experience and results in representing individuals


We handle all aspects of Social Security Disability appeals and California Workers’ Compensation on behalf of individuals, from initial filing through trial

What happens if a Disabled Adult Child marries? Here are the ramifications:

Individuals receiving DAC benefits lose their monthly stipend and Medicare if they marry; they can also lose their Medicaid. The only exceptions are if the DAC beneficiary marries another DAC, a person on Social Security Disability Insurance, a person entitled to “old age” SSA benefits (earliest age 62), or a person receiving another “secondary” benefit. The loss of Medicare, Medicaid, and the stipend would be life-threatening for many people with significant disabilities. As a result, many DAC recipients cannot marry the person of their choice.

Recipients of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) can lose their stipend and Medicaid if they marry a person with an ordinary (or higher) income or level of assets because the SSA counts the spouse’s income and assets. If two SSI recipients marry, both individuals face a 25% reduction in benefits and the assets cap.

4worldlovers:
Property Transaction and Management, Landlord Tenant Disputes & Litigations, Landlord/Tenant Law

Is a boutique civil litigation and transactional practice. At Saadeh law firm, we are committed to finding legal solutions for individuals and businesses. Our attorneys represent clients in a variety of practice areas in San Francisco, Silicon valley and internationally. We generally help clients avoid disputes but also help them win them.

Our attorneys and staff provide service by individualizing advice, support and guidance depending on the circumstances presented. Our approach is determined by the particulars of each matter, based upon a collaborative effort between the attorney and client. Businesses and individuals trust our firm to provide them with security and strategic growth through the evolving business and fiscal environment.

We practice law as a tool to advance your business objectives and to reduce your legal problems when they become a burden. We provide comprehensive legal solutions to the extent necessary in light of your specific situation.

4worldlovers: T.J. Murray and Jake Colvin prevailed in an admitted liability UIM case. The Claimant rejected the carrier’s $100,000.00 “new money” offer, demanding the $285,000.00 remaining on her UM policy and threatening a bad faith claim for failure to pay it. The arbitration award was $69,000.00, minus the $15,000.00 underlying settlement, for a net verdict of $54,000.00. Of note is that the carrier’s 100k new money offer came prior to expert discovery and Claimant deposed 6 treating physicians for testimony to be used at trial in addition to defense experts. Query whether his client received anything after these costs were deducted from the award.


T.J. Murray and Jake Colvin obtained a summary judgment in favor of the City of Merced. Plaintiff had purchased a home that the City had refurbished as part of its Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The City took over foreclosed homes, refurbished them, and then sold them to low income residents with loan assistance. Plaintiff was able to purchase the home that had new heater, water tank, floors, appliances, counters, windows, roof, a/c unit, etc. It was really nice. Two years later mold appeared from a leak in the a/c condenser. Plaintiff sued the City, proving once again that no good deed goes unpunished. The court granted the summary judgment as Plaintiff had signed all of the disclosures and rights of inspection that go with every home sale. Yet she had filed a verified Complaint saying she was a renter and that the City had a duty to maintain the premises as a Landlord. The court also awarded attorney fees pursuant to a provision in the sales contract but the City waived its claim thereto.


T.J. Murray and Dan Balich had a demurrer sustained without leave to amend in a Santa Clara County wrongful death case. In addition to the wrongful death cause of action against co-defendants, Plaintiff asserted a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) against the employer of decedent alleging that employer deliberately withheld notice of the fatality from decedent’s family, the Plaintiffs. The Court agreed with Defendant’s arguments that the requisite duty for purposes of NIED was not established in Plaintiff’s Complaint and that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any manner in which the Complaint could be amended to adequately support the finding of such duty.


T.J. Murray and Michelle Levinson obtained a summary judgment in favor of the City of Cupertino on a disability discrimination case brought by a former employee. The Court found that the City established that Plaintiff was unable to perform the essential job functions of his position and that the City had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Plaintiff’s employment.


Phil Segal obtained a defense verdict against a plaintiff who claimed that defendant landlord’s negligence resulted in a fire in a commercial rental property causing Plaintiff to suffer catastrophic injuries including third degree burns and a spinal fracture. Plaintiff demanded $1.65 million, the jury awarded 0.


Daniel Balich obtained defense verdict against a Plaintiff claiming subrogation damages stemming from a rear end accident in San Francisco. Defendants, a landscaping company, argued that Plaintiff’s insured was negligent and the sole cause of the rear end accident. Plaintiff demanded $10,000.00, the jury awarded 0.


T.J. Murray obtained a defense verdict for the City of Cupertino in Santa Clara Superior Court after a one week jury trial. A homeowner exited his driveway and attempted to make a U turn across the westbound lane of Cristo Rey Drive into the eastbound lane. He collided with a motorcycle travelling in the westbound lane which caused serious injury to the motorcyclist. The homeowner settled with the motorcyclist then sued the cities of Cupertino and Los Altos for indemnity. The basis of the claim was that the curve in the road near the house had a limited sight line of westbound vehicles constituting a “dangerous condition” and that cities had notice thereof. The factual twist here is that the house and driveway were located within Los Altos but the street where the accident happened (in front of the house) was located within Cupertino.